Roger Ebert & The Movies - Gladiator
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 พ.ย. 2019
- I love Roger Ebert, but I thought he was dead wrong on Gladiator as did guest host and critic Joyce Kulhawik. Gladiator ended up winning that year's Academy Award for best picture and Russell Crowe won that year's Academy Award for best actor. Personally, I also liked the performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Richard Harris.
- ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![[MIRRORED] LISA - ROCKSTAR 🎸 MV version #LISA #BLACKPINK #ROCKSTAR](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-U58DuCCtZk/mqdefault.jpg)
A week later Ridley Scott walked right past Roger on the red carpet and ignored him.
Good for him
guys, while yall might not agree with Ebert (myself included), can we at least appreciate that he was a GENUINE critic and wasnt afraid to speak his pov. we dont get a lot like him. RIP Roger Ebert
Roger did not want to listen to Joyce Kulhawik views. Hard to watch him exert his white male privilege in such a blatant sexist way -- constantly interrupting her. True its his show but it was so hard to watch this great critic behave so arrogantly.
@@leond8549 “wHitE mAle pRiVeLaGe.. REEEEEEE” lol, stfu clown
@@leond8549 it’s supposed to be a back and forth. Something both Gene and Roger understood. Sure they interrupted each other often, but briefly, then they let the other respond. She went on way too long and was obviously trying very hard. It’s understandable that she was trying hard since she’s sitting there with Roger Ebert but like u said it was his show and he’s not gonna let her or anyone else regardless of gender hijack it. What u said is nonsense. If he showed any privilege it was the privilege of being Roger Ebert on the Roger Ebert show, that’s all. Him giving her the opportunity in the first place proves he has nothing against her gender.
I thought they were both wrong. Not a zero, not a 10. I give it a 6.
I often found myself disagreeing with a lot of his reviews. He famously panned several of my all time favorites in addition to Gladiator like A Clockwork Orange, The Professional, Donnie Darko, The Usual Suspects, Fast Times, Butch & Sundance, and Fight Club to name some of the most noteworthy. Having said that, I definitely respected his integrity as a critic and his ability to stick to his guns and be honest about how he felt
I actually like Joyce here, this argument harkens back to some of the Siskel & Ebert magic. There'll never be another Gene Siskel (or Roger Ebert for that matter) but this was a fun exchange to see.
Agreed - in fact this is the only non-siskel debate I’ve seen that has that early S&E energy.
Same here!
Yeah she killed it here.
I LOVE how Ebert knew he was always alone on an island about this movie. While everyone else was raving about it...he was just being honest about his own opinion, and he never felt obligated to change. He always gave you his honest take, regardless of how unpopular it was. He will be missed. 😔
HIs complaint was the movie is too dark.
I saw Gladiator. In the theater.
It wasnt dark.
I think his local theater was having technical issues. And he gave it a bad review.
No, Ebert is a dick.
I do respect Ebert... but not this review. His criticisms of the movie range from petty to irrelevant to nonsensical. It's like he had some chip on his shoulder towards it for not being a perfect representation of history, so he just took to nitpicking it out of spite. He complains about the historical inaccuracies without caring at all about artistic license and how much it worked for the storytelling of the film. He makes a completely nonsensical criticism about the movie looking "murky" and "dark" and that "by the end, you just want to see some daylight!"... there's plenty of daylight and bright, beautiful cinematography in the movie. Most of the biggest scenes are in broad daylight in the colosseum It's like there must have been something wrong with the projector when he saw it or something.
"This is JUST a gladiator movie!"
Yeah... it's almost like the movie is called "Gladiator" or something...
Except it ISN'T "just a gladiator movie"... it's a movie about the abuses of power by a tyrannical megalomaniac who threatens the chances of Rome returning to a republic, and ultimately, his downfall as Rome "is to be a Republic once more". Maximus and his revenge story are just a vehicle to tell that larger story, and goddamn is it an effective vehicle. It doesn't matter if it's historically accurate or not. This is a fictional Hollywood representation of the idea of what happened, as told through an effectively representative protagonist.
I mean, the frickin' tagline... probably one of the best of all time... says it all: "The General who became a slave. The slave who became a gladiator. The gladiator who defied an empire."
On a more personal level, the movie is really about Maximus' desire to go home and be with his wife and son. His journey is one that exemplifies the classic hero's journey of achieving your goal, but not in the way you expect, having changed by the time you get it. Maximus' journey is about him ultimately achieving his goal of "going home" to be with his wife and son... but the twist is that it happens in the afterlife. He had to sacrifice his life to make it happen. This is ultimately the bittersweet story of a soldier in a society like Rome. They die to make goals happen. But ideally, it has to be for the actual greater good, not some ironic, selfish "greater good"... _"Is Rome worth one good man's life? You made us believe it once... make us believe it again."_
Somehow... Ebert missed all this while he was worrying about the thumbs up/down not being accurate, getting upset that they would draw a parallel between gladiators and modern day wrestling as though they aren't the same thing just from different eras... and apparently watching the movie through sunglasses or something.
IMO, Gladiator is Ridley Scott's best movie. Alien and Blade Runner are close runners-up, but Gladiator is just such a towering achievement of filmmaking that still holds up to this day, and it covers such a broader and more emotional, and societally relevant, scope than either Alien or Blade Runner (maybe Blade Runner will eventually become more relevant once we actually have undetectably humanoid robots, but not yet... and I'm not worried about being in a spaceship with a xenomorph anytime soon... we DO still have tyrants like Commodus, though). Gladiator was Lord of the Rings before Lord of the Rings for me, where it completely blew me away and opened up my mind in terms of what was even possible to put on screen and make it look this good. It's a big part of what gave me my love of old medieval/swords & arrows/etc style of war/battle movies, etc, which Lord of the Rings then just multiplied. As I've grown and the years have passed, I've often feared that either Gladiator or Lord of the Rings or both would age poorly and not hold up, and just have been superficial action movies that I only loved because of sword fights and big armies and old medieval-style production value and whatnot... but no. Every time I go back to watch them, I find new depth and quality to the storytelling and themes, to the filmmaking craft overall, to the acting, to the dialogue, to the sense of timelessness and epicness that doesn't feel meaningless, but substantive in terms of transporting us into the story and world and making it all feel so real and believable, but also engaging and entertaining and exciting. I'll never understand how a guy like Ebert, who otherwise usually had very reasonable and understandable opinions even when I disagree with him, just went so oddly negative on this movie. It's one of the best ever made.
Gladiator didn’t get rave reviews at first. Like Braveheart, it only got huge praise come awards season
She was spot-on. Documented cred for her.
The name of the movie "Gladiator"
Roger Ebert: "It's just a Gladiator movie"
You're proving his point! lmao
It was one of those movies that I found ok on first viewing but several more viewings later, one of my all time favourite movies.
Same here
@@RMokros My favorite movie of all time, 10 out of 10.
Not me, when I first watched it I knew it was great.
The fact that they didn’t take in consideration the amazing soundtrack by hans zimmer its just sad 😔
Most of the reviews on this show never talk about the music. And great action scenes are simplified as "the director is good at blowing things up".
Well they only have a few minutes.
Hans Zimmer is overrated & his music sounds all the same.
Ebert never cared for movie scores much. He rarely ever mentioned them and when he did it was because he hated it.
This review was an insult to all the worked on Gladiator
Thank God I didnt see Ebert review this movie before I saw it, I would have passed! Goes to show you, To each his own, I FKG loved Gladiator, and was glued to it until the end!
I found that most of Eberts reviews tended to go like this, "Oscar bait material = thumbs up. Everything else = thumbs down." It just seems like he hated fun.
@@jacksquatt6082 You should read his reviews for Superman, Spider-Man 2, and Iron Man.
@@jacksquatt6082 but this won best picture lol
Out of all the movies Rodger Ebert reviewed i was incredibly shocked by this one.
"It's just a gladiator movie." Uh, Mr. Ebert's ghost, the movie was called "Gladiator". He was wrong on this one. She held her own and stood up for when ended up becoming with winner of the best picture oscar of 2000.
Gladiator was more than just about Gladiators. It had themes that apparantly did not resonate with Mr. Ebert. Themes of slavery, honor, betrayal, incest, duty to one's country, and democracy vs autocracy. The former being especially relevant today. I love this flick.
Not that the Oscar really matters. This is an instant classic. Not sure how Ebert missed the mark on this one. It happens though. Sometimes your head is elsewhere and you can’t get into the world. Or sometimes we fall for a movie then come back to it and realize it sucked balls.
Yeah, I don't know what kinda taste you got, pal. For many this movie was an instant classic, including myself. You don't have to fall in that camp. Doesn't mean I'm wrong or you're right. Film is subjective.
@@orlandoruizjr3834 Film is awesome; I can’t understand why Roger didn’t like this. Crowe became a star after this role too. Siskel would be ridiculous some times and get on a high horse with some films. The only other movie where Roger didn’t like the movie and completely missed the public’s love for it was Ferris Bueller. I don’t like Bronx Tale or Usual Suspects so to each their own.
The movie was not great. But it was enjoyable. It was a case of style over substance, which is often true for Ridley Scott. The acting was great, the cinematography was great, the music was great. But it was shallow, the characters and plot were uninteresting and by the book. Still, I quite liked the movie.
“I actually prefer Shakespeare’s language.” Absolutely devastating blow by Roger 😂
then watch a Shakespeare movie, roger.
@@lordemed1
He was talking about a movie he like called Titus which was an adaptation of a Shakespeare play called Titus so ya he did watch Shakespeare movies.
I feel ebert was just being way harsh about it. i mean, i dont think the other critic is right either, i dont think the movie is a masterpiece but no where near what ebert is describing it to be.
how is it not a masterpiece? It has one of the best hero/villain duos in cinema history, great acting and character writing. Especially Commodus, he's always on those lists of best cinematic villains. The film has an awesome soundtrack, great script, emotionally compelling story and beautiful cinematography. To each their own I guess
This woman is an angel
watch this one th-cam.com/video/uXd910vgf3Q/w-d-xo.html
Hail to that lady
Props to Joyce for sticking to her guns on Roger's turf, but I do see both sides. The problem is both take such definitive positions when in reality the truth is in the middle. Gladiator is a popcorn flick using the conceits of a quasi-biblical sword- and-sandals epic, and it's an engrossing one. But it's not high art. It's hokey, substituting awe for adolescent expressions of 'cool'. The plot is derivative, it's emotionally manipulative, and much of the dialogue is hammy. As for the gladiatorial battles, the film does seem to want to have its cake and eat it - deriding the spectacle well as leaning into the gratuity for the sake of our own perverted viewing pleasure, but I dig it. I like being manipulated by films. It's kind of their point. In fact, many of my favorite films embody all these things, and Gladiator is godd*m good time.
Edit: As for visuals, as usual, Ridley Scott spends his time and money where it counts and phones in the filler - Ridley knows how to manage his time on set, and I dig him for that too.
It’s no spartacus. Not braveheart. It is a popcorn movie. It was fun and Crowe was the reason to see the movie. Ebert was a little harsh.
"I actually prefer Shakespeare's language" is cold as hell
Woah!! Ebert was waaaay off with this!
Craig C no, he was spot on. That movie is the most overrated.
No he wasn't
Yes he was.
@@ctnewman123 Art is subjective, but it is safe to say that those who don't like *Gladiator* are in the minority. The film got more favorable reviews than bad, was a huge hit at the box office (#2 of the year), and was nominated and won a slew of awards, including several Oscars.
musicaltheatergeek79 If all movies were 100% on the rotten tomatoes it would be boring. Ebert gave negative reviews to critically-acclaimed films but always backed his point of view with strong opinions, which I admire
Every once in a while, Ebert gave a giant turd of a review. This was one of those times. He just seemed intent on not liking it before it even started playing in the theater.
He really enjoyed Home Alone 3 as well.
He didn’t like Silence of the Lambs either.
He was mostly right though. No deeper meaning for sure. I like it when the film was released (I was sixteen then). I watch it today in the cinema first time from over 15 years and I have to say that it's very crude and simplistic story.
@@DrGalazkiewicz He gave Silence of the Lambs 3 and a half stars out of four. Gene didn’t like it, though.
He also did with Full Metal Jacket.
She called it right, ebert was way off the mark on this one in my humble $.02 opinion... it was a great movie. The ending was kind of sad but hey so is real life. Surprises me in this regard normally I find Ebert and my tastes usually align pretty closely but on this one were total opposites for i loved it.
"Gladiator" (2000) is one of my favorite movies!
It honestly always seemed that Ebert gave positive reviews to any movie that had an air of "Oscar material," but with everything else he was either lukewarm on it, or hated it. I think he just hated anything he saw as frivolous, no matter how fun it was.
@@Daojman7 I'm not going to comb through his entire catalog to get to the exceptions to that rule, but *in general* it seemed that he hated fun. Plus, he comes off as an obnoxious snob in a lot of his reviews.
Ebert- what drugs are you taking mate? This film is an absolute epic!
He was off his rocker.
He was always talking bollocks about classic films.
He was a major alcoholic.
I love Ebert, but when he’s wrong he’s really wrong.
The movie is crap. Rog was right.
Ebert had no argument here, the lady was ripping him apart and he was begging for air time. Great movie, better than average for sure.
I have the UTMOST OF RESPECT for Roger Ebert, nonetheless, he was completely off base here as criticizing this Collasal Maserpiece as "murky." Hans Zimmer's score is enough to make my heart swell up to the Heavens and to praise God with a teary eye that cinema can be so reverent and transformative. Russell Crowe shows us his élan to acting whilst eternally grounded as a virtuous man. Thank you Ridley Scott for your devotion to the visual and heartfelt altar. You are irreplaceable SIR.
Love Ebert but of course he was wrong here. He’s also mistaken that Maximus has to battle a foe called “the legendary Titus”. The dude’s name in the film is actually Tigris.
Expect for the cinematography, I'm actually with Ebert on Gladiator. My main issue is that the film has a thin plot that was stretched for 2 and a half hours.
@@patrickshields5251 The movie didn’t have a thin plot. It was incredibly well-acted, well-written, and well-directed. Sure, the film’s runtime is too long and the story can be formulaic at times, but that doesn’t make it a bad movie.
@@HugoSoup57 You get butthurt when someone dislikes a movie you like do you?
Woah no shit
@@patrickshields5251I think your confusing a simple plot with a lot of depth and resonance with a intricate and complicated plot. Were you looking for twists and turns in an epic about stoic philosophy and democracy?
And there were a few non gratuitous turns that served the plot, so not too simple.
Saw this movie for the first time in 2021 and found it masterful. This fine woman really goes toe-to-toe with Ebert - a great moment.
I kind of thought ebert was A little rude to her, bordering on chauvinistic with all the demanding "can I talk" and it's my turn
Wow what an out of touch review by Ebert!!
....OR Ebert just didn’t like your precious movie!
Not to say I agree with him. I’ve never seen it.
@@roostermcscratch9060 me either. Never had any interest in watching this movie.
@@roostermcscratch9060 I’m not sure what Ebert wanted from this film, but I really enjoyed it. Regardless you should watch it. It may or may not agree with you, but it’s worth one viewing.
This movie is an all-time classic and awesome movie he was way off on this review
Gladiator is my favorite movie. I was shocked to hear that Roger E. was not impressed.
Based Ebert
I don't know why Ebert wanted Gladiator to be more like Titus, because Titus wasn't completely ancient Roman in its style: it was more of a fusion of some Roman but mostly modern styles. Titus fused so many styles and sensibilities, that it's hard to say in what way Ebert wanted Gladiator to be like Titus. It wouldn't have suited Gladiator to be like Titus, since the film Titus was intentionally anachronistic and absurdist in style, not to mention all over the place in tone. Titus's storytelling wouldn't have suited Gladiator either, because Titus was intended to be an extreme senseless horror-tragedy, while Gladiator is meant to be an action-drama-epic which has enough tragedy in its story already. And while I'm a big fan of Peter Ustinov's Nero from Quo Vadis myself, if the Commodus from Gladiator were like Ustinov's Nero, he would be hard to take seriously, and would've made Gladiator an unintentional bad comedy. Imagine Commodus shouting in the same same manner as Ustinov these lines Nero said in Quot Vadis: "I COMMAND YOU TO STOP LOVING ME!" Ustinov's acting style and Nero's lines from 1951 wouldn't have suited Commodus in Gladiator. Even so, Commodus already has quite a few pitiful humorous moments similar to Nero's, like when he complained how unfair it was that the crowd loved Maximus for his mercy. While Nero could be dangerous, and was able to make his subjects afraid of him, he mostly came across as downright outrageously comical and silly. While Commodus could be cowardly and whiny, he could also be downright creepy, menacing, and unstable to the point where other characters are afraid of saying or doing the wrong things around him. The way Ebert described Gladiator, you would've thought he was talking about a dreary, existential 70s picture. I don't mind that he doesn't like the movie: I just mind that he gets the details wrong, and pays attention to the wrong aspects while ignoring everything else. I guess that Ebert's reception to a film depended very much on what mood he was in.
Did Joyce make another guest appearance on the show after saying 'one of the best movies ever made' ?
I remember her being on another episode of at the movies with Roger. I looked her up and was shocked that she was in at least 10 episodes with him but only one more after this episode aired.
I remember she was on the episode where they reviewed The Messenger Joan of arc and she gave it a really glowing review. Ebert was shocked and told her “You bought this?!!” It just seemed as if he didn’t respect her opinions. Calling Gladiator one of the best movies she’s ever seen pretty much was the last straw for him.
Roger Ebert was on the money with his review of Gladiator. It never should have been nominated for anything. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should have won Best Picture or Traffic,, and three other movies that should have been nominated were Almost Famous, You Can Count On Me and Wonder Boys.
I agree with Ebert too.
You’re a hater, Gladiator is arguably one of the best gladiatorial epics ever made.
@@patrickshields5251 You’re crazy, this film had great acting, great writing, and was amazingly directed. Gladiator admittedly has a couple problems with its overlong runtime and the story being a tad formulaic, but the movie was definitely Oscar worthy.
@@HugoSoup57 Shh, it's okay. Daddy's here!
@@HugoSoup57 How can it be one of the greatest films ever made if its got a formula plot & doesn't do anything we haven't seen in other epics like Spartacus?
5:18 'This is just a Gladiator movie!'
Well no shit sherlock.
Not Roger’s best moment. Credit to the other critic for standing up to him, let alone shredding is arguments. Ebert was not infrequently wrong, as was Siskel, but this likely was his worst criticism. Gladiator is now regarded almost universally as a great movie. Fun with great acting. His criticism of the movie is either simply incorrect or trivial. Complaining about the historical accuracy of thumbs up is preposterous.
Are you not entertained!!?? The movie is quoted more than you can count. One of the best films of 2000. Period. Helped put Joaquin Phoenix on the map. Lmao! Come on man!
What theater did Roger view this film in? I wish he was able to take another look at it.
R.I.P Mr. Ebert.
Tell him, girl!
I'm a bit in the middle, I really love the movie but I also wouldn't call it a masterpiece.
I'd be amazed if that woman was ever allowed back on this show.
Was she ever on his show again? How many times did he have to say "let me talk"? lol
he loves Dark City but hates Gladiator. I can't get a beat on the man.
Dark City is a far superior movie. Much more creative and inventive. Much more interesting to watch and a much more absorbing film. Better writing and characters. I didn’t dislike Gladiator as much as Ebert, but I am more in his camp than hers, and I usually find myself in agreement with him.
@Brandon K very interesting and informative take. Solid point. Lol
@@tjbes they're both bad movies
Was Ebert not entertained?!
I,ve never seen the movie,but i know its a great movie.
Eberts so right here about the total lack of depth , I would characters in professional wrestling have even more depth than the characters in this film. the fact someone paid to talk about movies called gladiator one of the best movies they’ve EVER seen is wild. Hope y’all like where movies like Gladiator have gotten us.
Huh. I didn't expect this from Ebert. But then again, I am not Ebert. He has his opinions (of which which I agree most of the time) and I like his criticisems. Cirtizisims. Whatever I agree and disagree with him.
Wow this woman sounds like a really good film critic, I wonder what else she reviewed!
*Remembers this is the same person who had that godawful Magnolia take*
This is the same critic that hated magnolia but she gets a pass after this review
That was funny and entertaining. The women movie critic was great, Ebert great as always. I loved the movie.
Great movie.
That woman is an absolute legend. History proved her right and Ebert wrong.
Roger was wrong about Gladiator. He said to Joyce “let me talk, it’s my turn” 😭😭😭. No it’s not.
i'll be honest, when this movie came out they played it in school and I couldn't pay attention to it cuz of the visuals. like i just ignored it cuz i couldn't clearly see what was going on. later on people told me it was a badass movie, after that i watched it and liked it. i didn't know much about rome so i just kinda took it for what it was. the idea that joaqin pheonix's character would challenge a common slave was always weird to me thoe.
Ever seen?!?!
OF THE YEAR!?!?
Gladiator is a masterpeice
I agree with Ebert on this one. The plot i never bite it
A rare miss with Ebert on this one.
one of the extremely few times when Ebert got it wrong
Whether you agree with Ebert or the other critic on the film, I’ll say this. She’s rude. She won’t let him speak, she interrupts him more than once. She’s a guest on his show. Show some respect. Ebert asked twice if he could talk. I’ve never seen him say that to anyone else because he never had to.
Ebert def got paid to do a bad review of it. There’s no way he could truly believe what he just said.
revisiting this clip after finally seeing the movie and I'm laughing so hard
Fuck war criminal Obama
Thumbs Down👎
This movie vexed me. I was vexed. But I still liked it.
This was a good movie, not as great as Spartacus or Braveheart, but still worth watching. Ebert liked Space Jam and Mad Max 3, nuff said.
Not to mention he and Siskel were the ONLY critics to like Speed 2.
Ralphie from the sopranos liked it
I thought Ebert was right on the money here.
Roger was properly on drugs.
Nah its just that people give gladiator overpraise.
Ebert definitely has different tastes than me. I know the movie had some flaws but it was still super entertaining.
Rog was wrong on this one. But I still love his opinion.
The problem is that Ebert has seen 'The Sign of the Cross' (1932), 'Ben Hur' (1959), 'Spartacus' (1960), 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' (1965), 'Jesus of Nazareth' (1977) and 'I, Claudius' (1975), not to mention the David Lean epics and he has to contend with fanboys who've grown up with shallow action stars, CGI, idiot plotting and a level of, generally, modern scripting that is usually an insult. Kulhawkik is used to soaps.
Rip the the original and best critics!!
Edit.lol wtf gladiator is top 5 movies of all time a true epic
5:13 well that's the idea. The clue is in the title of the movie.
Roger is right about this movie, but I enjoyed the way Joyce challenged him.
Guy had a whole intro before criticizing movies😂!...
Gladiator won best picture!!!
It is a competently made film, for the most part, and entertaining, but there are a million just like it. (The same basic plot has been used in countless action movies. Good Guy has terrible wrong done to him, survives against all odds to avenge his dead loved ones, eventually meets Bad Guy in hand-to-hand fight that is the climax of the movie, etc.) I like it a little more than Ebert, but I can see where he is coming from. I recall reading that he thought "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" is better, and I totally agree with that. The fact this guest critic thinks it is one of the best movies she has ever seen is inexplicable.
“Best movie I’ve ever seen.
What a twat! She’s a complete joke! 😆
Ha Roper hated it too saying in 20 years this movie will really look bad but its one of my favorite movies still
Although I really liked Gladiator I agree on some of Ecbert's points
After I saw this review and then the movie we completely stopped watching this critic. Used to watch him all the time to help decide which movies to watch. Sure he is entitled to his opinion but obviously didn't share our views or the views of my generation. This movie went on to win 5 Academy Awards including Best Picture and is #37 on IMDB's top movies EVER so he couldn't be much more wrong. It's a great movie and is not "dingy" in any way. Complaining about the thumbs up? Why didn't he complain that everyone was speaking English? RIP Mr Ebert.
Not sure what Ebert was thinking here
What do you think a gladiator fight was to the pleb in the crowd? It *was* WWF.
Did he even watch it?
From my understanding, this was the LAST TIME she was on the show due to her not being fair and giving each other respect for equal talking time.
She had to go: she really overtook the review
Most guest reviewers were never brought back for another appearance.
@@jp3813 Harry Knowles was another who such a jerk, Ebert avoided him after his job.
I thought it was good
It wasn’t bad
It wasn’t great
I like it allot more now
Siskel had his moment with The Silence Of The Lambs.
Ebert had his moment with Gladiator.
Roeper had his moment with The Lord Of The Rings.
I had my moment with American Beauty.
I bet you also had your moment with a movie everyone else seem to love.
Titanic
@@ng2603 It honestly seems like most people hate that movie nowadays
I not the only person that thought this was dumb movie when it first came out and to this day! I felt it was an emotionless drab movie and I couldn't wait for it to be done.
Plus, the story is incredible unbelievable!
Spartacus is better. Kubrick is also a far superior director to Ridley Hack.
Gladiator is a great movie, Ebert really missed the mark on this one.
Good action movie with good acting. Up there with The Matrix and Lord of the Rings. Not great, but good entertainment.
While I do disagree with Roger Elbert’s opinion, you can’t help but be interested in what he has to say.
I don’t know what movie Ebert saw, but it wasn’t Gladiator!
I feel sorry for Roger Ebert having to had sat through so many horrendous movies, but gladiator in particular was almost 3 hours long. The poor guy. That lady he's talking to is insane.
like roger ebert but he got this one so wrong. people loved it when it came out and time has proved it a stone cold cinema classic. it shits on spartacus as well.
I like Joyce.
Gladiator is a schlock B-movie premise with top notch Hollywood level production. It's an okay way to pass an afternoon. Not great and the whole thing is fairly silly which makes everyone taking it so seriously even sillier.
Epic film wtf
He is so wrong here - what proves that a movie is good is how many times people watch it, what it leaves as part of the public domain (quotes, quips, references, etc.) and not only technical "perfection". But of course critique is individualistic - no matter how expert a person is, everyone has their own tastes.
And the ethering begins at 3:45
Roger Ebert is so objectively wrong in this review, I daresay he's a liar. "Dark, dingy, and drab visual style"? "At the end, you want to see some daylight"? Good heavens, old boy, if some of the scenes in this picture were any brighter, they would be positively blinding!
I wonder if the projector in his theater was broken?
No. He is right this movie sucks.
I sort of get his point -- I guess -- in a few scenes, maybe? -- but he wildly overstated the flick's "dinginess". Overall, a visually spectacular film.
Ebert didnt like so many classics
Wow. She totally gets the movie
Ebert is kinda right. I personally enjoyed Gladiator, but it's far from perfect and very overrated.
Definitely overrated. I agree thoroughly with Ebert on this, and Joyce's review has to be taken with not just a grain of salt, but an entire salt mine. One of my favorite lines from a review about this is from Elvis Mitchell (from The New York Times at the time): "The story of a proud Roman soldier who is sold into slavery and must fight his way back to freedom, "Gladiator" suggests what would happen if someone made a movie of the imminent extreme-football league and shot it as if it were a Chanel commercial."